A late welcome, but I too was fashionably late to the party last week...
This week however, I am prepared with no less than three cards:
A bold choice, so tell me if I'm in over my head. In mid- to lategame, Zanari hardcounters any deck that insists on yeeting spells in your face. The intended effect is to shift the meta to a more healthy one where decks have both magic AND minions. Similar to C'Thun, the Shattered which prevented control decks from relying on fatiguing their opponents.
More of an alternative to Dr. Boom, Mad Genius. It does require a full Mech deck and only triggers once a turn, so I gave it "Start of Game" to make the deck more consistent. Also, fun fact: the name Rhea means 'flowing stream', which I found rather fitting as streams of data flow between her and the rest of your Mechs, allowing them to move quickly (with Rush!).
Handbuffing spells might not be conventional, but it doesn't seem unnatural for Hearthstone. Elementals and (damaging) Nature spells already go well together, and I think this would be a nice addition. Not completely sure about it's balance yet, maybe it's effect should be limited to 2 or 3 spells?
I know three is a bit much, so there's no need to give feedback for all three, but I would like to hear everyone's favorite.
I don't know if I'm the only one, but I wouldn't mind if they experiment with a few different changes to WCDC. I understand a need for continuity, but changes shouldn't need to be a season long if they turn out disappointing. We could always just keep a change 2-3 weeks and revert it afterwards, or improve it based on feedback. Seems like a great way to test some of the well-received ideas.
As for a 10-star rating system, I'm still against making the current vote more complex/broader. However, I definitely like this version over having multiple voting categories. But may I suggest another change to go with it? I would actually like to see this nonetheless of other changes, but most certainly if we get a 10-star system.
In our voting page, we see the submissions in a seemingly random order (I haven't really paid attention to it). I would like to see them ordered by how many stars I have previously given them. I often like to revisit all the previous submissions once I have more to compare them to. This would make it easier to look at the cards I have given the same rating and decide which ones might deserve to be put up or down a place.
It might only be a small quality of life change, but besides the time put into programming it, I don't believe this has any downsides.
Tradeable cards need to be situational. If the right situation might be coming up, you keep the card. Otherwise you trade it. Hero Immunity is something Demon Hunter can profit from in many situations (the first card didn't have a lot of value to trade), so I understand as to why a change was necessary.
The issue I see with the new version is the exact opposite: it doesn't have any value to play. Who would want a 5-cost 4/4 if you can get a different card AND Attack/Immunity for the turn for only 1 Mana instead?
I hope this explanation helps you with your final design. I think you're on to something!
Since I'm new I don't really have a good feel for the current system yet, so take this with a grain of salt.
Quote From anchorm4n
1) Expand the rating system
I am personally not a fan of this option. I'm afraid that depending on how many submissions there are, too many sliders might become either overwhelming or tedious. I tend to give 2 stats to lacking cards, 3 to okay cards and 4 to the more interesting ones, with 1 and 5 being reserved for exceptions. My main concern being that with specific criteria we might lose track of the bigger picture. What about originality? If we split them up, are 3 aspects to rate really enough? And should they all be of the same value to the final average?
Another issue, although this one is not too difficult to solve, would be defining the different aspects. Does card rarity belong to balance or execution?
Quote From anchorm4n
2) Cut the Finalists Voting
I like this solution better. In a way we can already get voting through feedback, resulting in this being the third vote. My only concern is that it puts a hole in the competition, resulting in the submission phase being too long. And I think there should somehow still be credit given to the runner-ups.
Quote From anchorm4n
3) Rewards & Leaderboards
I won't dive too deep into the details on this one because I don't have the necessary experience for it yet.
My concern is that long term scores might discourage people who simply don't usually score very high or don't always participate. That being said I do like the idea of more people getting credit than just the winner. Currently that would be the finalists, so I would like for the competitions to keep something similar.
Another solution could be ordering the finalist (from best to worst) to decide on a winner. It feels stupid to rate cards you already rated a few days ago. This way the finals continue being special and it doesn't create a hole (time-wise) in the competition.
Thanks for all the feedback and positivity everyone! But to be clear, the idea of the effect is that if you trade, for example, a Frost spell, you would draw both a Fire AND Arcane spell in return (granted your deck contains at least one of each).
Similarly if your deck doesn't contain any Fire spells, trading a Frost spell would only return an Arcane spell.
And I would Imagine if you have no Fire and no Arcane spells in your deck, the Frost spells in your hand wouldn't show up as Tradeable at all (because your deck has nothing to give you for them).
[ EDIT: I fixed the text. This should be clearer: 'Once each turn, you can Trade a Fire, Frost or Arcane spell for ones of both other schools.' ]
At first I had effectively the same thing cydonianknight did for Priest. It didn't really work for Mage anyway because it didn't reward you for running all three different spell schools rather than just two of them. With these changes it doesn't allow you to keep cycling through your deck and triple-school Mage gets extra value out of the effect.
I particularly like that you have to strategically think about which card you need least and which schools you could most profit from drawing.
Also, I promise I will keep it to two drafts max this time.
Alright, we're a few versions in, but I think this is the final result. Although I think the enchantment mechanic fits Murlocs because they focus on buffing each other, it ultimately proofed too complex, so I removed it. I did keep the Battlecry for reliability and to prevent a boardwipe using Lushwater Scout.
I added the Stealth effect for several reasons. For starters I didn't want it to just be a Soul of the Murloc with a body, so I wanted to add something extra. Because I originally designed the card for board sustain, Stealth seemed like the obvious choice. As a happy coincidence it also fits the flavor.
Although it's clearly better than Soul of the Murloc, I think keeping it a Rare card should be fine considering it is exclusive to Murlocs whereas Soul of the Murloc targets all friendly minions.
I like the idea behind the card, but notice it lacks value. You practically give up a perfectly fine minion for a bland 4/3 3-cost.
Perhaps something like: "Deathrattle: Transform a Murloc in your hand into The Wereloc. At the start of your turn, summon it." This adds board value to the effect, but requires you to have a Murloc in your hand to sacrifice for said value. (I guess that should also make it a 4-cost)
I hope you understand my train of thought now. And I hope you can use this idea or at least as a guideline.
anchorm4n:
Show Spoiler
I really like Lil'idan. I can already imagine how fun it would be for Demon Hunter to have its own unique set of Murlocs and this totally fits in. I think you should go with this one.
Although I'm not normally a big fan of Tech cards (unless they're Tradable), I find Mechnapper really fits right in with the Boomsday expansion, particularly because it's a Neutral card, but I think it might not be Murlocy enough for this particular design competition.
Darktide Reaper has a nice effect that makes up for what other Murlocs might lack, but I feel like it's simply not that unique compared to the other two.
Thanks for the quick feedback! I will try giving some myself later.
I changed my card. It now uses a battlecry for reliability. I wanted to keep it original, so I used the minions' bonus stats for the summon. I think it really fits in with the Murloc tribe and requires a bit of setting up first, but can result in a strong board setup.
I also discarded the minion type thing I had going on. I think with some tweaks it can be a decent card in Neutral, but we are really looking for more Murloc focused cards here.
Originally wanted to use the same art linkblade used, but I don't think two cards with the same art would be a good idea...
I imagine there being separate tokens for each minion type as well as one for no minion type and one for all minion types.
Although I don't expect it to be a great card outside of Murloc decks, it could also be used for stuff like Beasts and Demons(Imps) or just Token/Zoo decks in general.
I realize using a name for a non-legendary minion is unusual, so this might be a placeholder. Suggestions are welcome.
Nirast: It's a bit too creative for my taste. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of a card that uses a choice between two options outside of "Choose One".
I don't think it's unheard of, just not phrased this way. I think it should be something along the lines of:
"Give a minion +3/+4. If it's an enemy minion with 3 or less Attack, destroy it instead. When the target dies, summon a Crab."
Tried it in HearthCards. Sadly it takes up to much space on the card. Edit: Nevermind, if you cut it between "When" and "the target" it fits on four lines.
Welcome back everyone!
A late welcome, but I too was fashionably late to the party last week...
This week however, I am prepared with no less than three cards:
A bold choice, so tell me if I'm in over my head. In mid- to lategame, Zanari hardcounters any deck that insists on yeeting spells in your face. The intended effect is to shift the meta to a more healthy one where decks have both magic AND minions. Similar to C'Thun, the Shattered which prevented control decks from relying on fatiguing their opponents.
More of an alternative to Dr. Boom, Mad Genius. It does require a full Mech deck and only triggers once a turn, so I gave it "Start of Game" to make the deck more consistent. Also, fun fact: the name Rhea means 'flowing stream', which I found rather fitting as streams of data flow between her and the rest of your Mechs, allowing them to move quickly (with Rush!).
Handbuffing spells might not be conventional, but it doesn't seem unnatural for Hearthstone. Elementals and (damaging) Nature spells already go well together, and I think this would be a nice addition. Not completely sure about it's balance yet, maybe it's effect should be limited to 2 or 3 spells?
I know three is a bit much, so there's no need to give feedback for all three, but I would like to hear everyone's favorite.
I don't know if I'm the only one, but I wouldn't mind if they experiment with a few different changes to WCDC. I understand a need for continuity, but changes shouldn't need to be a season long if they turn out disappointing. We could always just keep a change 2-3 weeks and revert it afterwards, or improve it based on feedback. Seems like a great way to test some of the well-received ideas.
As for a 10-star rating system, I'm still against making the current vote more complex/broader. However, I definitely like this version over having multiple voting categories. But may I suggest another change to go with it? I would actually like to see this nonetheless of other changes, but most certainly if we get a 10-star system.
In our voting page, we see the submissions in a seemingly random order (I haven't really paid attention to it). I would like to see them ordered by how many stars I have previously given them. I often like to revisit all the previous submissions once I have more to compare them to. This would make it easier to look at the cards I have given the same rating and decide which ones might deserve to be put up or down a place.
It might only be a small quality of life change, but besides the time put into programming it, I don't believe this has any downsides.
Feedback for FieselFitz
The issue I see with the new version is the exact opposite: it doesn't have any value to play. Who would want a 5-cost 4/4 if you can get a different card AND Attack/Immunity for the turn for only 1 Mana instead?
I hope this explanation helps you with your final design. I think you're on to something!
Since I'm new I don't really have a good feel for the current system yet, so take this with a grain of salt.
I am personally not a fan of this option. I'm afraid that depending on how many submissions there are, too many sliders might become either overwhelming or tedious. I tend to give 2 stats to lacking cards, 3 to okay cards and 4 to the more interesting ones, with 1 and 5 being reserved for exceptions. My main concern being that with specific criteria we might lose track of the bigger picture. What about originality? If we split them up, are 3 aspects to rate really enough? And should they all be of the same value to the final average?
Another issue, although this one is not too difficult to solve, would be defining the different aspects. Does card rarity belong to balance or execution?
I like this solution better. In a way we can already get voting through feedback, resulting in this being the third vote. My only concern is that it puts a hole in the competition, resulting in the submission phase being too long. And I think there should somehow still be credit given to the runner-ups.
I won't dive too deep into the details on this one because I don't have the necessary experience for it yet.
My concern is that long term scores might discourage people who simply don't usually score very high or don't always participate. That being said I do like the idea of more people getting credit than just the winner. Currently that would be the finalists, so I would like for the competitions to keep something similar.
Another solution could be ordering the finalist (from best to worst) to decide on a winner. It feels stupid to rate cards you already rated a few days ago. This way the finals continue being special and it doesn't create a hole (time-wise) in the competition.
Thanks for all the feedback and positivity everyone! But to be clear, the idea of the effect is that if you trade, for example, a Frost spell, you would draw both a Fire AND Arcane spell in return (granted your deck contains at least one of each).
Similarly if your deck doesn't contain any Fire spells, trading a Frost spell would only return an Arcane spell.
And I would Imagine if you have no Fire and no Arcane spells in your deck, the Frost spells in your hand wouldn't show up as Tradeable at all (because your deck has nothing to give you for them).
I hope the flavor text isn't too confusing.
[ EDIT: I fixed the text. This should be clearer: 'Once each turn, you can Trade a Fire, Frost or Arcane spell for ones of both other schools.' ]
At first I had effectively the same thing cydonianknight did for Priest. It didn't really work for Mage anyway because it didn't reward you for running all three different spell schools rather than just two of them. With these changes it doesn't allow you to keep cycling through your deck and triple-school Mage gets extra value out of the effect.
I particularly like that you have to strategically think about which card you need least and which schools you could most profit from drawing.
Also, I promise I will keep it to two drafts max this time.
Alright, we're a few versions in, but I think this is the final result. Although I think the enchantment mechanic fits Murlocs because they focus on buffing each other, it ultimately proofed too complex, so I removed it. I did keep the Battlecry for reliability and to prevent a boardwipe using Lushwater Scout.
I added the Stealth effect for several reasons. For starters I didn't want it to just be a Soul of the Murloc with a body, so I wanted to add something extra. Because I originally designed the card for board sustain, Stealth seemed like the obvious choice. As a happy coincidence it also fits the flavor.
Although it's clearly better than Soul of the Murloc, I think keeping it a Rare card should be fine considering it is exclusive to Murlocs whereas Soul of the Murloc targets all friendly minions.
Some feedback:
Arkasaur:
Perhaps something like: "Deathrattle: Transform a Murloc in your hand into The Wereloc. At the start of your turn, summon it." This adds board value to the effect, but requires you to have a Murloc in your hand to sacrifice for said value. (I guess that should also make it a 4-cost)
I hope you understand my train of thought now. And I hope you can use this idea or at least as a guideline.
anchorm4n:
Although I'm not normally a big fan of Tech cards (unless they're Tradable), I find Mechnapper really fits right in with the Boomsday expansion, particularly because it's a Neutral card, but I think it might not be Murlocy enough for this particular design competition.
Darktide Reaper has a nice effect that makes up for what other Murlocs might lack, but I feel like it's simply not that unique compared to the other two.
Thanks for the quick feedback! I will try giving some myself later.
I changed my card. It now uses a battlecry for reliability. I wanted to keep it original, so I used the minions' bonus stats for the summon. I think it really fits in with the Murloc tribe and requires a bit of setting up first, but can result in a strong board setup.
I also discarded the minion type thing I had going on. I think with some tweaks it can be a decent card in Neutral, but we are really looking for more Murloc focused cards here.
Originally wanted to use the same art linkblade used, but I don't think two cards with the same art would be a good idea...
I imagine there being separate tokens for each minion type as well as one for no minion type and one for all minion types.
Although I don't expect it to be a great card outside of Murloc decks, it could also be used for stuff like Beasts and Demons(Imps) or just Token/Zoo decks in general.
I realize using a name for a non-legendary minion is unusual, so this might be a placeholder. Suggestions are welcome.
I don't think it's unheard of, just not phrased this way. I think it should be something along the lines of:
"Give a minion +3/+4. If it's an enemy minion with 3 or less Attack, destroy it instead. When the target dies, summon a Crab."
Tried it in HearthCards. Sadly it takes up to much space on the card. Edit: Nevermind, if you cut it between "When" and "the target" it fits on four lines.
I'm kind of new to this, so I would like to get some feedback before I submit my card.